Full Tilt Issues Response to Clonie Gowan Lawsuit

Full Tilt Poker has issued their first official response to the lawsuit brought against them by former employee, Clonie Gowan.  She issued her suit in November 2008 after lengthy discussions between both sides failed.  At the center of her argument, Gowan felt that she was owed money as a part owner of Tiltware, the company who provides the software for Full Tilt Poker.  The fact that she lacks a written contract along with Full Tilt’s refusal to pay her for wearing their merchandise has forced the issue into a court room battle.  Full Tilt’s lawyers have now filed a motion this week asking that Gowan’s case be dismissed. cloniegowan

Gowan is claiming that in 2004 she was offered 1% ownership of Tiltware with the agreement that she become a celebrity representative for Full Tilt Poker.  From that point on, she was seen on the circuit wearing Full Tilt merchandise at live and televised events.  Then in May 2007, the members of “Team Full Tilt” were given checks as payment for their sponsorship duties, though Clonie Gowan did not.  She then began negotiations with the company but continued to wear their apparel.  During that time she continued to work without pay until November 2008 when she was given notice that Full Tilt would be dropping her from their roster of pros.

Her suit claims that there was a breach of contract, which she expects to be compensated $40 million for, a breach of fiduciary duties, a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and fraud/intentional misrepresentation.  Along with including several companies in her lawsuit she also named 13 of her fellow Full Tilt pros who she claims are part owners of Tiltware, including:  Howard Lederer, Erick Lindgren, Phil Ivey, Jennifer Harman, Mike Matusow and Patrick Antonious.

Full Tilt’s motion for dismissal that was issued on Monday, challenges every claim made in Gowan’s suit, pointing out the lack of evidence and the vagueness of her claims.  The lawyers also went to great lengths to dispute the 13 pros of any responsibility in the suit saying that this was a dispute between a company and an individual.  The motion even went so far as to say that the inclusion of her colleagues in the suit was a tactical decision on Gowan’s part to gain publicity for her lawsuit.

Full Tilt lawyers argued that each claim with the exception of breach of contract, was a misunderstanding of the law on the part of Clonie Gowan as well as her lawyer.  They also argued that each point lacked evidence as well as clarity.  However, they did argue that the claim of breach of contract may be viable but that Gowan would need to submit more detailed arguments for the case to reach court.  It is still unknown when a decision will be issued in regards to Full Tilt’s motion for dismissal.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•